Being asked to "verify direct XXX"

"Chip Jones" wrote in message
ink.net...

Because it isn't just a NATCA meeting...


Odd, then, that that's what it's called.

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 01:49:13 GMT, "G. Sylvester"
wrote:

The AIM is not regulatory and there is no requirement that limits usage to
authorized units.

That is definitely incorrect. TSO-C129. GPS units
have to be certified to use under IFR. Otherwise
I could pick up a golf ball on a string and call

I use my 295 on a yoke mount to legally fly en route IFR regularly.

Well, not all that regularly the past year, but It's still legal as I
have the equipment required for the routes being flown even if I were
out of RADAR contact.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

wrote:


You don't become "illegal" (whatever that is) just because TRACON's
radar goes down, or you enter a dead zone, or descend to an altitude
where radar can't pick you up.

It's not that you become illegal. If radar goes down or is for some
reason not available then direct may not be authorized because in some
situations radar is required.

"G. Sylvester" wrote in message
m...

That is definitely incorrect. TSO-C129. GPS units
have to be certified to use under IFR. Otherwise
I could pick up a golf ball on a string and call
it an attitude indicator and say that meets the minimum
requirement for an AI under IFR flight. Or I can pick
up a sextant and call it a FMS and then file slant-whatever it is.

I spent literally 2 minute searching but couldn't find that TSO
but this is from the FAA and has many references saying
that GPS's are required to be certified for use under IFR.

http://www.faa.gov/avr/afs/faa/8400/...4/4_001_02.pdf

I'll have to do some more research to find the exact regulation.


TSO C-129a is available online at: http://makeashorterlink.com/?A238150FA

TSOs are not regulations, they are Technical Standard Orders. TSOs are not
binding unless there is an FAR that requires the TSO to be complied with, so
says FAR 21.601. There are TSOs in existence that cover the "approval" of a
great many things, but you don't have to use "approved" equipment in any
operation unless required to do so by the FARs. What FAR requires
compliance with TSO-C129a?



PART 21--CERTIFICATION PROCEDURES FOR PRODUCTS AND PARTS

Subpart O--Technical Standard Order Authorizations

Sec. 21.601 Applicability.

[snip]

(b) For the purpose of this subpart--

[snip]


(4) An article manufactured under a TSO authorization, an FAA letter of
acceptance as described in §21.603(b), or an appliance manufactured under a
letter of TSO design approval described in §21.617 is an approved article or
appliance for the purpose of meeting the regulations of this chapter that
require the article to be approved.




I do realize that the AIM is not regulatory but
GPS's definitely need to be certified otherwise some
GPS's (Garmin 430 which I"m most familiar with) wouldn't
need to be placarded as "VFR only" when the owner didn't
go through the IFR certification for the unit.


If the avionics shop that installs a GPS lacking IFR certification adheres
to AC 20-138 it will affix a placard stating "GPS limited to VFR use only".
Use of a GPS with such a placard during IFR operations, even on a cloudless
day with no restrictions to visibility, would be a violation of FAR 91.9(a).
But a handheld GPS is not installed equipment.



absolutely not but at least they have been tested and designed
to a standard for aviation use and no standard other than being
light, convenient and as cheap as possible for the hiking crowd.
What you are saying is my Garmin V designed for automobile
navigation is legal to fly under IFR even though it updates
about once every 4 seconds.


Actually, I'm just saying that which is not prohibited is legal and there's
no prohibition against use of a handheld GPS during IFR enroute flight.



Another person wrote:
My sextant isn't authorized either. Doesn't mean I can't use it to
navigate under IFR.

incorrect unless there is a TSO for it.


Please cite the regulation requiring the unit be TSO'd.

wrote:
Agreed.

What I am saying is that the radar might be unavailable for any number
of reasons AFTER the authorization to proceed direct is given.

In which case there is no reason to do anything different - just
continue to proceed direct.

The first you know of a radar problem will be when you get your new
nonradar routing.


What some people don't seem to get is that the regs require that
certain equipment be on board for IFR flight, , and once that is
satisfied, it doesn't prevent your using other equipment that might be
on board, even if it isn't "authorized". (handheld GPS, LORAN,
sextant, RadioShack stopwatch, handheld Tates compass, ham sandwich,
you name it)

Approved GPS is required for GPS operations. "Proceed direct" is not
a GPS operation.

It might be. I am in the camp that knows that VFR GPS's, installed or
otherwise, are not legal for IFR for navigating on a direct course. You
are not legal asking for or accepting "cleared direct" when you are /A.
Nor is the controller legal in giving such a clearance.

"Newps" wrote in message
...

It might be. I am in the camp that knows that VFR GPS's, installed or
otherwise, are not legal for IFR for navigating on a direct course.


What regulation is violated by use of a handheld GPS for navigating on a
direct course?



You are not legal asking for or accepting "cleared direct" when you are
/A.

What regulation is violated by asking for or accepting "cleared direct" when
you are /A?



Nor is the controller legal in giving such a clearance.


What paragraph of FAAO 7110.65 would be violated if a controller issued such
a clearance?

"Roger" wrote in message
...

I use my 295 on a yoke mount to legally fly en route IFR regularly.

Well, not all that regularly the past year, but It's still legal as I
have the equipment required for the routes being flown even if I were
out of RADAR contact.


What equipment is required for the routes you're flying even if you're out
of RADAR contact?

Newps wrote in message ...

The only way ATC notices a 2 degree error is if where you are supposed
to be going happens to follow an airway.



No, a controller can also compare the track to the route readout.

"Newps" wrote:
You are not legal asking for or accepting "cleared direct"
when you are /A. Nor is the controller legal in giving such a
clearance.

Horse hockey.

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 14:31:25 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:


"Paul Folbrecht" wrote in message
...

I realize that, but the question was how far out of the way do you have to
be.. I guess it's entirely clear of the ORD bravo, in that case.


No, you have to be entirely clear of Chicago approach control delegated
airspace. That's considerably larger than the Class B airspace.

I once flew IFR to OSH around the South end of Lake Michigan.
As you well know they sent me what seemed like half way to Kentucky to
stay well clear of ORD's airspace, climb corrodors, and preferred
routes in and out.

Although, looking at a map shows the distance to OSH from Midland
(3BS) to be about the same whether you go around the North or South
end of the lake (possibly a tad shorter around to the South) it will
work out to be far longer going South if you are IFR.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

snip